In this era when education is governed by the logic of markets on a global scale (Apple, 2011), concerns have been raised regarding whether schools, as institutes that can considerably affect the life chances of students, have proved to be inclusive enough for students who can be potentially marginalised. The public education system perhaps has relatively more potential to provide such students with equitable educational opportunities than a system which is completely subject to the market logic such as private tutorial institutes, although currently the concept of publicness is becoming blurred. The blurriness of the division between the public and the private in education partly started with some governments’ resorting to the privatisation of education since the 1980s, in the hope to raise the quality and efficiency of educational provision (Levin, 2001). Hong Kong joined this global trend with a series of initiatives including the school-based management (SBM) policy of 1991 (Chan & Mok, 2001).
Of the various strategies of the privatisation of education, one popular strategy the Hong Kong government uses, though largely hidden from the awareness of the public and scholars, is to provide funds to schools, which allow for the outsourcing of curriculum delivery to third parties (Choi, 2015). When initiating a new reform, for instance, the government sets aside and provides funds to all schools per capita or to the applying schools, so as to use in implementing the reform, in addition to the annual budget which schools have full autonomy on its deployment. The foundation for this type of privatisation for Hong Kong schools was made with the introduction of SBM - SBM ensured schools’ “autonomy” and “freedom” in financial and human resources matters (Advisory Committee on School-Based Management, 2000).
Such privatisation in public schools using government funds to purchase educational services may partly solve the problem arising from strategies reflecting the user-pay principle, that is, inequitable access to educational opportunities across haves and non-haves, but has proved to create its own equity issues in some societies (e.g., Burch, 2009; Hogan, Thompson, Sellar, & Lingard, 2017). The government-funded educational outsourcing is practiced in most schools in Hong Kong (Choi, 2017), whether in the form of private educational companies providing classes within regular school hours, individuals being dispatched from private companies to contribute to the delivery of the national curriculum, or others. However, the equity implications of the practice is not given due attention except for the author’s own studies (e.g., Choi, 2015, 2017). These studies, insightful as they are, provide only a partial picture, as they are mainly drawing on document-based research of grant reports, though of a large scale. This follow-up survey research involving 15% of Hong Kong local secondary schools and case studies with four schools, will provide a fuller understanding of the phenomenon, as experienced and perceived by teachers and school leaders.
The central concept of equity in this study which is concerned with the life chance of potentially disadvantaged students in a highly meritocratic society, is conceptualised drawing on Rawls’ (1971/1999) notion of fair equality of opportunity, i.e., providing equal chance to students regardless of their background, if with equal ability and willingness to learn. In analysing the practice of outsourcing, this was understood to implicate providing extra support according to students’ needs with ‘unequal’ distribution of resources and support, to ensure their threshold performance (Bastian, Fruchter, Gittel, Greer, & Haskins, 1986).